Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill

I hoped that Mr Macindoe would make a full contribution on a bill that is important to our city, The Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill, but perhaps he will have something to say on clause 9. I certainly hope he does have something to contribute in that regard. Clause 9 essentially gives powers to the Registrar-General of Land to make the computer documentation of the transfer of Parana Park into the hands of the Hamilton City Council. I would like to be able to say “Parana Park of X number of hectares”, but of course that is in some dispute. I really want to stand up and support this clause, because I think it makes sense and it is very sensible. However, there is the issue of the outstanding problem of not knowing exactly how much land will be registered by the Registrar-General of Land. I do not know whether people following this debate can remember 2 weeks ago, but in changing the drafting of one of the earlier clauses defining this piece of land, my colleague David Shearer did a bit of maths and worked out that the new descriptor of how large the piece of land was did not match the previous description of the land, which went through a number of blocks of land that made up Parana Park. What we discovered—

💬 Tim Macindoe: He took 10 minutes to tell us all about it again today.

Well, I say to Mr Macindoe that that would be because we still have not had an answer from the member sponsoring this bill, David Bennett. He has had 2 weeks now—he has had 2 weeks. I know that David Shearer asked the question about whether David Bennett had been in the electorate during that period of time, and I can say that I know that David Bennett has been in the electorate during that course of time. It would have been great if he had got out, because we had great sunny weather for the whole of those 2 weeks. He could have got out with his tape. He could have gone around and measured the circumference of Parana Park and done some real work for this bill. I do not know—maybe he did put pen to paper and draft this bill, but my guess is that he probably did not.

💬 Grant Robertson: I’m thinking not.

Possibly he did not, but it would have been good to see him do some background research over the course of those 2 weeks to find out what the area of that land is. Because we have a dispute between the two definitions. It is of concern when we look at clause 9, because now clause 9 is giving the power to the Registrar-General of Land to transfer this land on to the computer database, yet there is still some uncertainty about how large that piece of land is and what the definition should be about describing that piece of land.

On clause 8, which we have just finished debating, I must say that we were all in support of it because it did not put unnecessary costs on the Hamilton City Council. As I described in my previous contribution, it is a city council—and I am sure it is not alone in this—that is struggling, because of a lack of economic growth in the area, to contain the cost to ratepayers. Let us face it: any cost that is put on the Hamilton City Council by the passing of this bill will be passed on to its ratepayers. Those ratepayers have already faced an increase in GST on everything they purchase, they are facing increasing petrol costs, and some of them are facing increased early childhood education fees, as well. So we do not want to pass on any more costs by passing this bill, to the Hamilton City Council, which would therefore be picked up by Hamilton ratepayers.

It concerns me that the select committee made a change to clause 9. We previously looked at a bill that was drafted to state: “The Registrar must, without fee, (a) issue a new computer register in the name of Hamilton City Council for the land …”. That has now changed. The bill states: “The Registrar-General must, on application,”. That means the Hamilton City Council—and I am assuming it will be the Hamilton City Council—will be responsible for paying a fee for the computer transfer to occur. I think that is really unfortunate.

Before I get on to my contribution on clause 9 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill, I would like to clarify some statements I made during the debate on clause 8. I have been advised by a learned colleague of mine in the Chamber that gift duties within the family apply to those gifts over $27,000 a year, which is a number I referred to. I believe that outside of the family, if there is no family link, they apply to gifts over $10,000 in 1 year. I would not want to be accused of misleading the Committee, so I wanted to clarify that at the outset.

I will go back to clause 9, which I am sure the Chair is concerned that I do. Clause 9 is about the Registrar-General of Land, who is authorised and directed to make entries in the registers under the Land Transfer Act 1952. Section 4 of the Land Transfer Act 1952 states: “There must be a Registrar-General of Land, appointed under the State Sector Act 1988.”, and that person must be a barrister and solicitor of the High Court, which is important. This is a particularly important part that I would like to discuss. The Registrar-General of Land, in exercising or performing the powers and duties of the registrar, must have regard to the following objectives: ensuring an efficient and effective system for registering dealings in land; managing the risk of fraud or improper dealings; ensuring public confidence in the land title system; and ensuring the integrity of the register and the right to claim compensation under Part 11 of the Land Transfer Act.

There is some concern—and my colleague Sue Moroney raised some of these points—that if we have not got a proper description of the land, and it appears that there may be 0.4 of a hectare missing from the description of the land in the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill 2010, then that potentially undermines public confidence in the land title system, and it may, in fact, undermine the maintenance of the integrity of the register. We may find the need to claim compensation under Part 11 of the Land Transfer Act. I think we have approached with some jocularity the question of this missing parcel of land. But in terms of the duties of the Registrar-General of Land, I think it is very important that we do get to the bottom of this. We need some clarity. We would not want to put a public servant in a difficult position, or in a more difficult position than he or she already finds themselves, under the current Government. I think that it is important that the member in charge of this bill does give us some clarity on that anomaly between the description of the land before it went to the Local Government and Environment Committee and the description of the land after it came back from that committee, so that the Registrar-General of Land is able to properly fulfil his or her duties as set out in the Land Transfer Act 1952.

I think there is a problem in ensuring confidence in land title systems. I think it is important that to retain public confidence in the land title system, we make sure that when public land is transferred from one form of ownership to another, or is vested in the way it is in this bill, that the land is properly accounted for, and is properly valued. We have a problem with a piece of legislation that is going through the House at the moment making amendments to the Crown Pastoral Land Act, and that is in reference to pastoral leases in the South Island High Country, where by devaluing the rent that the Crown charges on that land, the National Government is devaluing that Crown-owned land—in fact, devaluing a State asset. Given that for that particular State asset we do have a process by which it is privatised, we need to ensure public confidence in the land title system, and we need to make sure that the public can have confidence that the Crown is actually valuing that land appropriately, so that when that land is privatised, the Crown can realise the true value of that land. That land belongs to 4.4 million New Zealanders.

Those 4.4 million New Zealanders ought to receive the true benefit of the value of that land. But what we have seen for a long time now—and I am prepared to accept that the situation at the moment is bad enough as it is, but this Government is making it even worse—is a massive transfer of wealth from the many to the few. I believe that something like 28 landowners who have received land under tenure review have sold on small portions of that land for massive profits. Those profits have gone to those landowners, not to the Crown.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Can we get back to clause 9?

The reason why I bring that up, Mr Chairperson, is that the powers of the Registrar-General of Land, referred to in clause 9, require the Registrar-General to ensure that there is public confidence in the land title system and to ensure the maintenance of the integrity of the register. This particular legislation, I think, is excellent.

The member in the chair, David Bennett, is nodding his head and looking rather pleased with himself. He has got a bit of a Cheshire cat grin on his face, but let us be honest—this is not a Government bill. This is a local bill. If this were a Government bill, this would be called the “Parana Park (Sell it Off to the Lowest Bidder so They Can Make the Money Out of It) Bill”. That is what would be going on. Thank goodness the Hamilton City Council has brought this bill to the House! The member is doing a fine job of representing his local electorate and bringing this bill to the House, on behalf of the Hamilton City Council. This legislation ensures that a public asset remains in public hands. I think it does an excellent job of ensuring public confidence in the lands title system, and it ensures the maintenance of the integrity of the register. I have no doubt that there will be no claim to compensation as long as we figure out where that 0.4 of a hectare has got to. It is very important that we find that.

Clause 9(2) states that the Registrar-General must: “(a) issue a new computer register in the name of Hamilton City Council for the land; and (b) enter on the computer register the words Recreation reserve subject to the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Act 2010”. Before this bill was referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee it had the words “without fee”, but now “without fee” has been struck out and it states “on application”. In fact, even in the commentary on the bill the select committee has said that to align the bill with the Land Transfer Act 1952 it believes that the issuing of computer registers must be undertaken on an application basis and accompanied by the relevant fee. This will, of course, mean an increase in costs for the Hamilton City Council, and we all know what happens when councils have to increase their costs. They pass those costs on to the ratepayers. Who are the ratepayers? They are ordinary, hard-working Kiwis who already have to face massive increases to their costs of living whether they are at the supermarket, at the doctors, at after-hours care, or at the petrol pump. In all manners of life, we are seeing massive increases in the cost of living under this National Government, and this will be just one more thing that will push rates up even further.

I know that ratepayers all across the country have to scrounge around looking in their bank accounts to see whether they have the money to pay those rates bills every quarter. The change that the select committee has made to clause 9 will increase costs for the Hamilton City Council, and those costs will be passed on to ratepayers in Hamilton City. I bet that they will be coming to their local member and asking: “Why did you allow an increase in costs to the Hamilton City Council, and why did you allow that cost to be passed on to us, your constituents and the ratepayers in your electorate? Our costs are high enough already.” That is what they will be saying to David Bennett. Ratepayers will be saying to him that when they go to the supermarket their costs have increased, when they go to the petrol pump their costs have increased, and when they visit the doctor their costs have increased. Now, because of this bill, they have one more cost to deal with.

I will take a short call on clause 9 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. I was hopeful that the member in the chair, David Bennett, would rise to speak. This is becoming quite a serious matter. This is the second week that we have been debating this bill, and we are very anxious to get it through its stages, as I know the good people of Hamilton are.

I see some clarification is being given to the member in the chair, and I think this will be helpful, but I am concerned that under clause 9(2)(b) there will be an entry on the computer register of the recreational reserve, subject to the passing of this bill after its third reading. We have a dispute—it is not a bitter dispute; it is an anomaly—with the footprint size of the Parana Park reserve. There is 0.4 hectares missing. That is worrying if we are to finesse the bill this evening. I can see the member in the chair now has clarification. We cannot have this registered as a recreational reserve by the Hamilton City Council, as is able to happen under clause 9(2)(b), if we do not know the actual size of the footprint of this park. We are not prepared to go further with this bill until that is clarified in the Committee.

This matter is becoming quite serious. We are quite prepared to give a call to the member in the chair. I thought he would sort this out—[Interruption] He has had 2 weeks. Labour members were accused of filibustering last time we debated this bill. We were concerned that the actual size of this park is incorrect. As lawmakers, we cannot deal seriously with legislation before us, without it being seen as a bit of a mockery, if we are talking about the wrong size of the park.

This park is being gifted to the people of Hamilton, and we in Labour say that we will protect the assets built up by past generations so that Kiwis can own their own future. This is all part of an asset that belongs to Kiwis; it belongs to all New Zealanders. I have been to Parana Park with my children, and I will go back there. But this recreational reserve cannot be registered until we know what we are registering. We know it is Parana Park, but for goodness’ sake, around the edges there is 0.4 hectares missing. Mr Chairperson Roy, you are a farmer and you know what 0.4 hectares is; I am not very sure myself. It may seem inconsequential and trivial, but it is not inconsequential and trivial to lawmakers to make sure that we are talking about the right thing.

I can see that the member sponsoring the bill on behalf of Hamilton City Council now has some clarification from the survey maps. I am sure the Registrar-General of Land, who is authorised and directed under this very provision in clause 9, will want to make sure that this issue never comes back to the Committee. We do not want it to come back to the Committee in the future. We do not want to debate it again as a local bill because we need to correct the record. It is as simple as that.

We have got to a bit of a breakdown here. We want to make sure, before we support this bill—because it is a wonderful bill for Hamilton—that we are protecting the assets that George Parr donated. Labour believes they ought to be protected and never hocked off. We will not allow that. We want the children of future generations to enjoy Parana Park in its fullness.

We seek clarification on that clause. I do not think we can proceed to debate on clause 10, in the interests of trying to get through this Committee stage, until we have clarification. I do not think I take it so seriously as to want to recall the Speaker. It is not a breakdown, but we need some clarification. We are simply entreating the member in the chair, who is getting his head around the previous land records with the Registrar-General of Land—perhaps we could call the Registrar-General of Land, and not the Speaker, to the Chair.

I move, That the question be now put.

I will take a quick call on clause 9 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. Although we have treated with jocularity this whole issue of where the 0.4 of a hectare disappeared to, there have been such incidences. There was a very recent incident up north where a faulty survey was done on a parcel of land—on land that was meant to be a reserve—similar to Parana Park. Surveyors did not locate the correct peg, and as a result quite a bit of land was shaved off the reserve. Since then houses have been built on that land, so where a peg should have indicated a boundary of this reserve up north, at Ōtito Bay in Matapōuri in Northland, there is now someone’s lounge sitting right where that survey peg should be.

We make jocular remarks about this issue, but that is a case where land, just as with Parana Park, has been lost for good. I suspect that was also what happened at Parana Park—that there had been some sort of surveying error and as a result the boundary changed. Some of the land that George Parr gifted in its totality back in the 1920s was shaved off and quite possibly, although I do not know the area myself, someone else’s lounge is sitting where a survey peg should be and those people are watching TV right where the boundary is.

That is quite serious because the incident up north has involved millions of dollars, the case has gone to the High Court, and it is being appealed. There are issues with the land that was inadvertently taken. There has been quite a legal and bureaucratic process to get the whole issue sorted out. It still has not been sorted out, and we will probably see people at the Court of Appeal before the year is out, trying to sort out this whole issue. It is a shame, and we would hate this to happen to Parana Park as well.

The point is that shonky surveys happen. They then get registered under the powers of the Registrar-General of Land. Those people are not infallible; they do make mistakes. Unfortunately, a loss of land is the result. As I have said, it appears that that was the case with Parana Park. As has been said, George Parr decided back in the 1920s to gift this land in its totality. I must say that Pūtikitiki is its real name; we must get that in. Pūtikitiki was gifted, but unfortunately not all of it has been enjoyed by the good people of Hamilton at this stage.

That was my short contribution, but I think it is a serious issue. We do not want to see other parcels of land accidentally having bits cut off, particularly in this case where there is a reserve and people are not able to enjoy it to its fullest extent. Kia ora.

I will take a short call to resolve some of the issues that have vexed the Committee over the last few days in regard to the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. But, first of all, I thank everyone for their great interest in Parana Park, Hamilton. I take great offence to all those comments about Hamilton not being a growing city, and I reiterate the strength of our city and the beautiful place that Parana Park is. I challenge all parliamentarians to go and be part of Parana Park at some point.

I think Kelvin Davis explained very well both the history of what we are dealing with and the issue that was raised by David Shearer. He hit the nail on the head in his explanation of what could have happened. Essentially, in preparing this bill we sought advice from the Hamilton City Council about what the correct title would be. The council sent an email, describing in three bullet points the total quantum that Mr Shearer so diligently worked out, as he was the one spending most of the time in this Chamber 2 weeks ago looking at the information.

However, that description is an old description, based on the original title, and the legislation has been amended, as members will see in clause 3 in the inserted text, to reflect the computer-generated title, which is the most accurate title that is available and the title that readers would see generated if they went into the computer freehold register under the Land Transfer Act 1952. Effectively, there is a change in land area under that entry, and it was wrongly described in the first instance through the original certificate of title. The more modern title, which is computer-generated in the register, reflects what is now in the bill. So the bill represents what we have as the best record for that title.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I thank the member for his explanation, but I wonder whether he could table the documentation that supports that information, so that other members of Parliament may have access to it.

I seek leave to table, first of all, the email from Alex Kay, Leeanne O’Brien, and Kemble Pudney, from the Hamilton City Council, regarding the definition, and also the entry in the computer freehold register under the Land Transfer Act 1952, which shows both the computer-generated version and the older version.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

I guess I will just wrap up—well, maybe not wrap up—the debate; there might be more calls to come. Who knows? But I thank the member who has drafted—the member responsible for this bill. I cannot get that phrase right. The member responsible for this bill—I think I probably have difficulty using “responsible” and “the member” in one sentence. Look, I am trying to describe why I have been constantly tripping over referring to David Bennett as the member responsible for the bill, but of course he is responsible, and I will try to make sure I get that right from here on. I thank him for that explanation, because I think it is really important that we get it right.

I will be interested in looking at the documents that have been tabled, because I want to make sure that we have not somehow lost some land in cyberspace somewhere, in the process of the land going from having a paper description to having a computer-generated description. I want to make sure that that has not occurred. But I guess the member is saying that these days we perhaps have more accurate techniques of making sure we get the land area correct.

It is important to have had clause 9 clarified. It is very timely because, as my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway pointed out, clause 9(2)(a) gives the power to the Registrar-General of Land, once this bill has become an Act, to “issue a new computer register in the name of Hamilton City Council for the land;”. We on this side of the Chamber wanted to be assured that the description of the land was accurate before that took place, so I thank the member for taking time to brief the Committee. We could see that Mr Bennett was making very good use of information from the officials to make sure that he was correctly briefed during the debate, to avoid giving us a guess or just having a go at answering our queries. He actually collected the information before him, and I think that it is fantastic that he could do that in a very timely—

💬 Grant Robertson: Responsible.

—and responsible manner. We on this side of the Chamber can now fully support—well, I can certainly speak on behalf of Labour members, but not the entire side of the Chamber—the clause, and say that we are now satisfied. We can proceed to vote in favour of clause 9, knowing that we are not telling the Registrar-General—he or she; I am not sure whether it is a male or a female at the moment—through legislation to create a new computer register for this piece of land, and not undermining the integrity of the register by having the wrong description for that piece of land. David Shearer, who is just joining the debate again for this evening, will be really pleased to know that. He first picked up the discrepancy in the previous clause on this issue, and I know that he has been deeply concerned about it because he has raised it with me constantly over the past 2 weeks. He has said: “Sue, where is that land? Make sure that we find it!”. I am very pleased to be able to report to David Shearer—and I am sure he has been following the debate closely, anyway—that we have now been assured of that, and that we can go ahead and vote for this clause. It will be on the basis, however, that the drafting error—the Act is called the “Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Act 2010”—is corrected before we come to the third reading, which I know we are all looking forward to. We want to make sure that the date of 2011 is inserted in clause 9 and other clauses that, by a pure drafting mistake, refer to 2010.

Without further ado, I am happy to say that Labour can now support clause 9. Our questions have been answered, and we look forward to the rest of the debate on this very important bill.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 Repeal of Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act 1958

Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act 1958. I guess this clause really comes back to the main issue.